Yeah, I think you're right. May do just that tbh, but that's me just being petty at this point haha. I'm just glad it's all over tbh and that I can move on.

@dx100ukyeah, they never responded to the SAR. Feel like reporting them to the ICO just because tbh although after the last time I tried reporting them they said to just continue asking them to comply, so not holding out much hope of them being penalised in any way. I agree though. Seems like more hassle than it's worth tbh for £750. Thanks everyone again. Much appreciated for all the help and support you've all provided. Couldn't have done it without your guidance guys.

Been a while since I received any communication regarding the case so been trying to follow up with the court. Have not managed to get through to them as Willesden County court are the worst and never answer their phones, been trying for the last few weeks and being on hold for hours with no response. In the end emailed them and it seems there has been no further requests for applying for a stay, variation or anything. Anyways I came on here to vent about the court when I saw the last post on the thread. Was wondering about what the labrat wrote regarding making a claim back could work or better to leave well alone in case this sparks them to try reopening the case? I mean they'd lose anyways because they don't have the evidence they claim of me insoecting the vehicle because that never happened.

Thanks, I understand that. I was just told to keep an eye out for any response from the claimant to the courts until that date. What I'm wondering now is if that's done and dusted or are they still able to revive the case at this point. And if so, are they negatively impacted by the missed payment deadline as well as the missed response deadline given in the letter striking out the claim. is there any more need for me to be worrying about this, checking to see if there are any new letters from them or the courts, and whether I need to be following up with the court anymore.

The hearing date for their claim was meant to be on November 1st. They were claiming I was responsible for renting a vehicle from them and involved in an accident and were trying to charge 10k for excess charge + vehicle out of service charge and some other stuff. In any case I never rented that car from them and they forged my signature on a hire agreement (probably copied from an old car I hired from them). They attempted to pretend it was me who rented the vehicle when the owners son was doing something dodgy. I SARed them and they refused to share any info and instead responded by saying they had video and pictures (which they couldn't possible have) and that they would see me in court. So we proceeded, I knew they wouldn't have anything real because I did not rent the vehicle and aside from their forged document they couldn't possible have any video or photos of me taking the vehicle in question. We completed the defence, submitted a response to the DQ and then we're preparing for the witness statement when the court sent a letter saying the claim has been struck and the hearing vacated because the claimant did not pay the court fee. However they could apply within 7 days to have it set aside, varied or stayed. I believe they did not pay because they knew they'd lose. I was advised here to keep phoning the court to see if there had been any update from the court on whether the claimant made any attempts to reinstate the case somehow and to keep following up until the court date. So nothing happened until that point, and the court said they received no applications however they said the claimant could apply to set aside, vary or stay the case even months later despite what it said on the letter which struck the claim. So now I'm not sure whether I should keep following up or whether the matter is pretty much closed and I could forget about the whole thing.

He guys. So court date was originally meant to be 1st of November. Until now there has been no further letters and the court said they have not received any applications for a set aside, variance or stay but that they can do so at any time, even months and months later. When I asked if they would have a weak case due to delays etc if there comes a time when they do apply for any of the above, they said each case would be judged by its merits.

Thanks pal. You know when you say keep phoning until the date of the original hearing, as it's been vacated, I was assuming it would be another date if they put it back on the table. Or would it continue on the same date. Also regarding the witness statement, is it still required to be sent on the same date as originally required if they get it set aside, varied or stayed (I'm still not sure what these mean fully). Or would the process start from the needing the court to send a new letter with a new hearing date and submission of WS date? Yeah, it's unfortunate. To be honest he was hesitate from the start even though they used his details to pin some PCNs on him but they eventually sorted it out so maybe he feels like he's on on terms with them. I can try push him again and ask him to take the text you sent and just change it a bit. It's been a little while since he said was unsure about doing it.

Really? Thanks man, much appreciated for everyone here who helped get me here. Your support has been been extremely valuable. I was just worried what they meant by set aside, varied or stayed thinking these guys might be able to set things back in motion. Buy yeah, if it's done then I'm over the moon. Thanks again.

Hey guys. Hope everyone is good. Just as an update. I've been given a date of Nov 1st for the hearing. Meantime I have struggled to get the guy who told me they did something similar to to make a statement. Apparently he was worried about being called a snitch or something as if he was sending someone to prison. Stupid mentality but it is what it is. Anyways I've continued to push this along. Was getting ready to prepare my witness statement and have just been sent a letter by the court saying the claim has been struck and the hearing vacated because the claimant did not pay the court fee. I'm pretty sure it's because they don't have any evidence aside from that forged rental agreement, despite them claiming they have video and photo evidence of my inspection of the car. Anyways apparently they can still pay it within 7 days to get it set aside, varied or stayed, whatever any of that means. Dunno what this means for the case. Is it over, or should I still expect something to happen.

I did mention that I submitted the Defence and have received an update on MCOL that the DQ had been sent out to me to fill out. There wasn't a response to that post for a few weeks and I believed the reason for this is because the DQ seemed straightforward enough first time I helped a friend with it that you guys thought it wasn't necessary. Apologies if I assumed incorrectly. By the way, the case I was helping my friend out with did have a request to include costs but that was included in the Defence rather than the DQ. No problem anyways, as long as we can stop these people from their fake claim, that's all that matters. I'll speak to the other person by the end of this week hopefully. He's not a friend by the way, we just have overlapping social circles. I'll advise him to join the forum. Indeed you're right. These guys are definitely out of order. Any help you can give to anyone else who has had their information used without their permission will be extremely helpful. Also, apparently the son has been fired in the last couple months and a young woman now works with the father. Someone who recently hired a vehicle from them just informed me of that. Oh by the way, I've just checked the MCOL page, and it turns out they have on record the following "A claim was issued against you on 06/04/2021 Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 15/04/2021 at 20:00:54 Your acknowledgment of service was received on 16/04/2021 at 08:07:21 Your defence was received on 10/05/2021 DQ sent to you on 10/05/2021 You filed a DQ on 02/06/2021 General sanctions order was made on 07/06/2021" However I emailed CCBAQ on May 25th with my DQ response and have the auto confirmation email from them that they have received my email. I don't know why the DQ is therefore being recorded as being filed on the 2nd June. It should be either May 25th or, if sent after 4pm, May 26th.

No worries. I just filled in the DQ similar to how we did it in a friend's defence against a private parking company parking ticket. I'll try to speak to the other person by the end of the week and depending on what he tells me I'll update the statement and share it here for comment. If that looks good then I'll send it back to him to see if the form captures what had happened to him and if so to then sign and date it and share a copy of it with me. That's unfortunate if the courts do not take some sort of action against companies and people who make frivolous claims based on false declarations of truth. With regards to the SAR, we have not received a response to the SAR aside from that rude email they sent in early May. We waited for the one month deadline to pass and then submitted another email that you kindly drafted reminding Kuick that they are required to comply with the SAR and that if they fail to do so we will proceed to take them to court. This was sent on the 1st of June.

I did not realise there was a section on the DQ to even mention in person litigant costs. But no worries, it is what it is. For your second post, I'll ask the the other person whether he still has the documents and parking tickets, and whether he has anyy communication with the hire company regarding this. I'll also ask him to fill out the witness statement above. For the order notice, will the court not penalise Kuick, if it deems that the claimant was committing fraudulent activities by using my details and naming me as the hirer, and subsequently made a claim that was not based on any truth? I don't mind not getting any money as long as they are sanctioned somehow for their behaviour.

I spoke with him a few days ago briefly but he was busy. We spoke again yesterday when he filled me in. I want to speak with him again today or tomorrow to ask exactly what they did to resolve those parking tickets they transferred to his name. Might be over the weekend though before I can speak to him about it. In the meantime, I don't think the owner sent the DQ to the courts as I have just received the following letter. Don't know if he realised that he was to send it to the court rather than just myself. 2022-06-07 GFOJ_OR_ORDER _ claimant not sent court N180.pdf

I have heard that this stuff was happening with others but it wasn't until a friend of mine said that someone else we know had a similar problem with his details being used that I knew. I know the other person but we aren't very close so when I found out I spoke to him and he informed me that they used his details as well.

@BankFodder No, not rumours. I know someone who has also hired a car from them previously who had similar issues. I spoke to the other guy yesterday and he informed me that whilst there was no accident in his case, he was being sent parking tickets in relation to a car he had not been renting at the time and that they had used his details, either to actually rent the car, or after the fact to transfer liability to him. I'm not sure how he resolved it, he mentioned they resolved it for him but not sure whether that meant they paid it on his behalf or told the parking company it was in fact not his liability. He said he's already complained to them before and that he'd be willing to write a statement to this fact if needed. I've heard rumours of others having similar dealings with Kuick but these are rumours as I don't know the other people and can't contact them. Edit: @Manxman in exile thank you for the correction. Indeed it was a typo. I did mean "I note in their DQ"

Hey guys, thanks to everyone for the information. I tried reading the document shared by Andyorch and attempted to reconcile it with Manxman's post and not sure if Kuick are expected to share the information under the SAR or whether they are exempted. I not in their DQ they mentioned that they have two witnesses, which I assume are him and his son. I have spoken to some other people who have complained that the son has hired cars out under the names of former hirers without their knowledge. I guess it's too late to add anyone to the DQ at this stage but perhaps if I can get written statements I could also include that somewhere in the evidence.

I put yes to small claims court like I have with another MCOL claim I dealt with previously for a friend That's the form they sent me. I filled out the same thing. I think maybe it's because his claim is under 10k but with interest and court fees it goes above 10k. I still don't get how they expect to prove I rented the car from them with just a forged hire agreement with no payment made either for the rental or the deposit. They claim in their email to me that they have video footage of me inspecting the car but that's impossible.

So the guy has come back and emailed me his DQ answers. Apparently he's saying he has a witness somehow. Probably his son who is in it with him. Also wants it to be held at his own court and notes that it's over 10k so says small claims court is not the right court. They really are trying it. Still waiting on the SAR reminder. I really want to see their supposed video footage of taking the vehicle they say they have. Don't trust their paperwork at all as I know they've forged my signature as I found out the police were sent a document for the vehicle with my signature. Furthermore if I rented a vehicle off them they'd have had a deposit from me and prepayment for the period but nothing. I really wonder what games they are playing. Claimants N180.pdf

@BankFodder Thank you for your response mate. Sounds good and concise. I'll put it in an email and send it tomorrow morning. Tjanks By the way, should I completely disregard previously drafted email? Is it too much and unnecessary. I was thinking for the purposes of our current case it might be helpful to document this communication and use any response they give as support that they are doing something fraudulent.

@BankFodder, I've sent off the DQ response today. I have also confirmed that Kuick have not sent any SAR information since their last threatening email to me. I have subsequently oreoared the following email to send to them. Your advice would be appreciated. "Dear Kuick Hire Ltd Thank you for you're response to my request for giving me all my information under the subject access request. Need I remind you that under such a request, companies are obliged to comply with the law that states that any and all information relating to someone that a company has must be shared with said person if they make a subject access request. You have not done so, and I repeat my request that you share all the information including any alleged contracts, videos and footage you have of me in the regards. Secondly, following interactions with your son around the time I received the police letter regarding an alleged accident that Kuick Hire identified as being me, he confirmed that the car was indeed being rented by someone else and he in fact shared that information with me. He told me to share that information to the police and filled out the document stating that with his own hand. Needless to say that is an additional red flag if for no other reason than sharing confidential client information to another client without the knowledge of the person who's details are being shared. Additionally, the action taken in nominating me as the driver, and then subsequently sharing documentation that another person had the car at the date of the incident seems to suggest fraudulent activities are taking place in your Office. I'd advise you to look at the internal failings of your company and its employees. Finally, the tone of your response is quite threatening and I have no doubt that the truth will come to light when we face each other in court. I will also be reporting this failure to comply with the SAR regulations to the Information Commissioner Office, and you can expect a claim from me to you for your failure to comply with the Subject Access Request sent to you on April 16th, 2021, and as a result denying me my my right of access to obtain a copy of all my personal data, as well as other supplementary information you may have on file relating to me." Not sure if this is enough for the letter of claim itself or it needs to be written in a certain format though.

Thanks mate. Used your template and the Defence was sent off today. MCOL website updated with defence received and an additional update saying DQ sent out. Seems the hire company responded almost immediately to the defence as on another case with a PPC that I'm helping a friend on, he was sent the DQ a month after his Defence was submitted as apparently they only send out the DQ once the Claimant decides to proceed. Regarding the claim for not producing the SAR, I emailed them on the 16th April and they have until the 16th May I think to provide it. I can get on a claim if they don't send it by then. Thanks again for the help.

@dx100uk and @BankFodder thanks for the information. I just want these people out of my life. I don't even care about getting money from them, their continued presence in my thoughts is just bumming me out all the time. It's just getting worrying now at this stage. I'm dealing with people willing to forge my signature and now I'm going to have to bring probably some kind of expert to do an analysis to show I never signed that and it was a forgery. They definitely can't show video of me hiring a car on the date they mention unless they change timestamps on the video. But then again if they forge a signature who's to say they won't try it there as well. It's all just been a very worrying time for me. I feel down all the time because this case is all I think about. I'll type the defence shared by yourself (thanks again) and sign and email it to the County Court. Hopefully the judge can see through whatever BS evidence they present but I'm just worried they'll have falsified what they present and pay some people to guarantee quality documents so they can try to scam me out of 10k.

The woman who was assigned by the police to the case of the accident. She is the one that sent the letter originally to me saying I have been identified by the hire company as being the driver. By the way, do you reckon I need to hire a solicitor. I am currently not able to afford one as I just finished my studies and am out of work so not sure if there are free ones for this type of thing. I've called up citizens advice bureau almost every day for the past week and all I get is a message saying they're all busy and to try again later.

So, I've done as asked on here and sent a letter to the fellow on the other letter. He has not got back to me since. Contacted the case worker for the accident to inform her what had been going on. She explained that she does not care whether there is fraud or anything of the sort and her only concern is finding this other fellow now that the info had been given to her. She said if she can't find him she'll probably close the case as unable to locate driver. Called the ICO again regarding the issue and they explained that they would not be able to do anything regarding the matter unless I contact Kuick again and explain my concerns to them regarding the data breach and wait to hear back from their response. Apparently if Kuick say sorry for giving this info out then they wouldn't be able to do anything at all. Regarding the SAR, they did not provide me with one. The only made a response in email saying the following. "Good Afternoon XXXXX XXXXXX, We are writing to you in regards to your email concerning the subject access request. We understand that you are requesting all documents relating to your name, although we have clear proof that it was you who has rented vehicles from us. We have security footage of you while inspecting the vehicle, as well as all documents necessary to complete a hire agreement under your name. We will see you in court, and we will claim everything that is listed on the claims report. " ICO said I'd have to wait the full month before I can complain about this noncompliance with the SAR and as that would come after the defence deadline then wouldn't do much at the moment. They also added they are so backlogged that any case I bring to them would take months before it even gets reviewed. I guess I'll just have to proceed with the defence as is and see what evidence they present. When speaking with the case worker for the accident, apparently they provided a hire agreement with an apparent signature by me. I asked her to compare it to the signature on the return letter I sent to her and she mentioned it looks similar-ish. I asked her to share it with me but she said she wouldn't be able to do so as it belongs to the hire company. These people have forged my signature as well it would seem. It's crazy.

Will contacting the other person benefit this case? Or is it a case of being a good Samaritan and just letting them know just in case? I'd assume as long as the court case is going on with me then he'd not be involved at all, apart from possibly being contacted by the police if they accept the response form I filled out. With regards to the complaint to ICO, this should be a complaint regarding what exactly? The fact they shared another customer's information with me? Or that they are not registered with ICO (as the ICO said they can not be sure if they are or not at this point)? Thanks again for the help and advice.